Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2020 September 25

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

September 25

Toronto Zoo

I was watching a 1970s film clip about McDonald's Canada, where they mentioned two things in relation to the Toronto Zoo. They said that the larger of their two restaurants in the zoo was the largest McDonald's in the world. Since the film clip was almost certainly self-published it's probably not a WP-reliable source, but I assume it's true, since they'd know. The other claim is the one I'd like to know about: they said that the Toronto Zoo (then Metropolitan Toronto Zoo) was the largest zoo in the world. By land area, Sri Venkateswara Zoological Park is the largest zoo today (and it's not close). According to this fairly reliable-looking source, the Miami Zoo is the largest in North America. If that site is correct, the Toronto Zoo is apparently fourth largest by land area. So, my question is this: was it ever correct to say that the Toronto Zoo was the largest in the world? I've used land area, but if it was the largest using some other reasonable measure (number of animals, number of distinct species, number of enclosures, etc.), then I guess that would count. Or did the fellow (who appeared incredibly camera shy) simply misspeak? Matt Deres (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Since the three larger zoos (by area) all opened at their present locations in the 1980s while the Metro Toronto Zoo, as it then was, opened in 1974, it makes sense that it was then the world's largest. The statement certainly appeared in print at the time: for example, a front-page article in the Toronto Globe and Mail for September 1, 1973, features an interview with the zoo's director and describes the location as "the world's largest zoo site". --174.89.48.182 (talk) 03:59, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Good point about the other zoos relocating in the 80s, but it assumes their previous sites were smaller and that no zoos larger than Toronto's closed since its opening. I'd like to add something to our article and while I agree you're probably correct, it would be WP:OR to add it. The Globe & Mail is certainly a reliable source, though it's unclear from your blurb whether they were stating a fact or "only" quoting the director, who would potentially have a COI in terms of promoting his zoo. I'll pay a visit to WP:RX as I don't have access to old papers, but any other reliable sources I can use would be helpful. Matt Deres (talk) 14:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• One of the things to remember is that the concept of "largest zoo" depends a LOT on how one defines the parameters. For example, in the U.S., the largest zoo in terms of "visitor accessible developed area" is the San Diego Zoo Safari Park. However, in terms of "contiguous land owned by the zoo itself", the largest zoo is the North Carolina Zoo. Much of the NC Zoo is off-visitor areas set aside for animal habitat, and other parts are reserved for future habitats and tourist areas; it's all part of the zoo, but it's not developed for visitor access. There's probably arguments to be made for either definition being valid, so there's no natural "right" way to count the area, we just need to determine what we mean by "largest" and how we're measuring the area and what counts. Do we go by the property lines? Do we measure animal habitats? Do we measure visitor accessible areas? etc. etc. --Jayron32 16:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Just a quick note to say thank you for mentioning the North Carolina Zoo. We're quite proud of it here in NC--Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Yes we are. Except when having to hike back to your car in the July heat. Who thought building a zoo on the side of a mountain was a good idea? But seriously, it's a fantastic zoo. --Jayron32 11:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

But the Toronto Zoo goes up to eleven... Matt Deres (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Understood; as I mentioned in my OP, land area isn't even the only measurement anyway, regardless of what gets counted. But even sticking with land area, the Toronto Zoo has radically changed the way it uses the land within its boundaries since it opened; does the land count if it's used for woods to separate the areas? For rail systems for patrons? For support structures? And so on and so on. Matt Deres (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

How much money do wikipedia editors earn? Do they enjoy copyright royalties?

~ Do Wikipedia editors get paid? How much do they get paid? Can Wikipedia editors accept donations from readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.145.60 (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Almost everyone here is entirely unpaid. Wikimedia maintains a tiny paid workforce for running the business, so to speak, but the encyclopedia itself is written by volunteers. Paid editing is not entirely forbidden, but regulated and discouraged; you can read more about that here. Matt Deres (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

That link goes to a page marked as a "failed proposal". Maybe you wanted this link instead? --Trovatore (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I think we can accept donations, so long as we don't do any favours in return. I certainly would welcome donations, large or enormous, in exchange for not doing you any favours at all. DuncanHill (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

OP, by posting that question, you're technically an editor. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Me too. Send cash or money order (payable to "cash") to <redacted> --2606:A000:1126:28D:797F:72BC:880:A657 (talk) 22:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Whether paid or not, no one here enjoys copyright royalties for their efforts. Anyone can freely (also free as in "free beer") reuse Wikipedia content for any purpose, under certain conditions. If these conditions are not met, the content may not be reused, period. In no case are any royalties due.  --Lambiam 08:22, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

That's incorrect. Contributors are required to irrevocably licence their contributions under certain licences when they contribute here, and those licences allow re-use but also have some other requirements. However contributors also retain their copyright and are free to licence their work under any other licence they wish, and for any royalties. Because most textual contributions end up being edited by lots of a different editors, some which will also meet the threshold for copyright protection, licencing such work under a difference licence is difficult. Still some editors do develop very good articles by themselves. Further, non text media are a whole different kettle of fish since they are often the work of a single editor. In any event putting the difficulty aside, the main point is it is possible theoretically, there's no period about it. The only thing that may make it impossible is the unwillingness of the various editors to agree, or the difficulty in contacting them (especially those who edit without an account), rather than a legal barrier and so it's going to depend on the specific case. For example, if someone wishes to copy this post of mine and does not wish to follow the CC BY-SA 3.0 or GFDL licences, they are free to contact me. I may very well agree to let them use it under a difference licence, for example one which does not require attribution or the copyleft component. I may also demand royalties for that. Nil Einne (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Jimbo sends me £1 for each and every edit I make. True story. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If you have a little slot on your PC labeled "SD", you can think of that as a "Send Donations" port, and try sliding money into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

LOL. On a more serious note, WP editors volunteer their time because they enjoy making the world a more informed place. I have seen my photographs used in books, articles, and web sites all over the world. For example, my photograph of Apple Campus (since replaced in that article by another editor's more recent photo) was used in the book iWoz. --Coolcaesar (talk) 18:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Per edit, editors get twice as much as IPs. Admins get four times as much as editors. Beaurocrats get sixteen times as much as admins and Jimbo Wales gets 256 times as much as beaurocrats. Mjroots (talk) 19:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Can a male identify as a wife?

I noticed an interesting sentence from the Wikipedia article for wife:

"A wife is a female (male in LGBTQ marriages) partner in a continuing marital relationship."

Does this mean that a male can identify as a wife? Futurist110 (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

No, that was vandalism by a logged-out editor who I'm sure had nothing to do with you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Are you being sarcastic here? Also, for what it's worth, my own question here was completely serious. And as a side note, No, I wasn't actually the one who edited that specific article. You can be sure of that. Futurist110 (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Then, "No, that was vandalism by a logged-out editor who I'm sure had nothing to do with you" should satisfy you. DuncanHill (talk) 00:30, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

OK. It's just that I was wondering if a gender non-conforming male could actually identify as a wife if he so desired. Futurist110 (talk) 00:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Saw it in a video of someone well known just a few days ago, but I'm annoyed that I can't recall who it was. HiLo48 (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Was it a gay male couple? Futurist110 (talk) 02:00, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 02:35, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Did both of them identify as wives or just one of them? Futurist110 (talk) 03:12, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Futurist110, in the gamut of human psychology, anyone may identify as anything they want to, whether by conscious choice or inner compulsion – no-one can stop them from doing so, however different to more usual modes of thinking it might be, and doubtless all possible combinations of genders and social roles in partnerships of two or more people (see Polyamory) have been and are practiced by somone somewhere.

In various cultures, however, public expression of some non-typical identifications might be culturally and/or legally unaccepted – context is crucial. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.33.80 (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this a reference desk for an an encyclopedia or a chat board? I used to think that reference desks are useful but gunk like this makes me wonder. There have even been calls to shut down reference desks. I have thought reference desks are great community building. But, again, this kind of chatting is just wrong for an encyclopedia. /meta 85.76.39.125 (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Isn't a part of the purpose of encyclopedia to provide definitions for words, though? Futurist110 (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Then maybe you should have posed this on the language desk instead. As to what someone could identify as, the user above has it right. Someone can identify as anything they want to. They could identify as a kangaroo if they want to. But that doesn't mean it has any legal or cultural standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

When I was about 16, I wanted to attend a concert at a nightclub. I sought out a totally janky "Passport ID" joint that took my word at face value when I told them I was 18. For a brief while, I identified as an 18-year-old. The club didn't accept my ID. The ID didn't make me 18 years old, it simply made me a liar. Elizium23 (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

An excellent example of an identification that was not legally acceptable in the context of the would-be identifier's culture/jurisdiction. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.33.80 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:DICT —Tamfang (talk) 02:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

For a reference: New York Times (Nov. 2012) - Is It Gay Husband? Lesbian Wife? Or What?. Alansplodge (talk) 12:44, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That's kind of old news. Nowadays, public figures with a same-sex marriage will typically call their spouse "husband" or "wife" according to gender. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Quite likely true, Bugs, but can you cite a published source (or a Wikipedia article backed by such) to corroborate your personal perception of the matter. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.219.33.80 (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean one that's considerably less than 8 years old? Google "same sex spouse husband wife" and see if any of the more recent sources measure up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

• The answer is "If you are unsure how to address someone, ask them and respect their wishes". If you want to know if a person identifies as both male and wife, you need to ask that person and then respect their own wishes to be addressed how they want to be addressed. That is the only answer to this question. There are well over 3,000,000,000 males in the world. We can't pretend to speak for all of them in any general sense. Ask the one you want to know from. They'll tell you. --Jayron32 11:51, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Someone can identify as anything they want to. No. You can't identify as a member of the Royal Family, for example. 95.148.1.191 (talk) 14:10, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure you can. That doesn't mean it has any legal standing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec) Well, anyone can so identify. There's no law against making such a claim, as long as it isn't done for fraudulent purposes. If pressed, though, they might have a problem in proving exactly what their relationship to the Family is. It's for this reason that some years ago I went to the trouble of finding exactly what my own relationship to the Queen is, and it's spelled out there on one of my user pages: she's my second cousin's great-grandfather's son-in-law's uncle's relative's father-in-law's great-great-great-great-grandfather's 1st cousin 9 times removed. I don't insist on being treated as a royal. Just think of me as one of all you members of the lower orders. Noblesse oblige. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 15:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

(Doesn't nine times removed imply nine generations of separation between the cousins? You might be nine generations removed from QE1, but not QE2?) --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:04, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Not necessarily: although one can speak of average generations' age over a population, individual family lines may differ greatly for social class, cultural or just stochastic reasons. Some people marry at and reproduce from age 16 (or younger, in past centuries), others (or even the same people) may be giving birth at 40 or fathering a child at 60, or more; two strings of opposite variations in two lines of descent could add up to large generational 'mis-matches' quite rapidly.

(As a tangent thought: the folkloric "seventh son of a seventh son" would be significantly age-differenced from his first-born cousins – one wonders if that might have anything to do with the origins of the associated myths.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 18:36, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Jack is pulling our leg a bit; note the word "relative's" somewhere in the middle of the long and otherwise specific string of relationships. That said, the rest of it doesn't seem to be too far off in terms of generations. Second cousin's great-grandfather goes up three. Son in law goes down one. Uncle goes up one. Father-in-law goes up one. Great-great-great-great-grandfather goes up six. First cousin nine times removed goes down nine. That's only a net change of one generation, which is fairly plausible even without the different rates. --Trovatore (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I guess if we're not concerned with cosanguinity, in-laws can come into play. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 20:17, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

That is why Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon got a dispensation: she had been married to his elder brother. —Tamfang (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Pulling your legs, User:Trovatore? Actually, no. There is one link in that grotesque chain that I'm slightly unsure of; that's the "relative". But all the others are completely correct (I would never have been shameless enough to sully sacred Wikipedia with it if they were not). And thanks for demonstrating the plausibility of the outcome. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:39, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, JackofOz. What are the possible values for "relative", then? I'm also a little curious how you found this path. If I had the graph, I suppose I'd try Dijkstra's algorithm or something. (I would guess you likely have many other paths to HM the Q of equal or shorter length.) --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, that's the classic red herring argument "You can't identify as a member of the Royal Family, so therefore genderfluidity is invalid" is the typical way this shit goes. Stop that. We see what you're doing. If you can't treat people who are different than you with decency and respect, you'd do well to keep your prejudices to yourself, TYVM. --Jayron32 15:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Jayron32, in all honesty I can't see any trace whatever in JackofOz's response of the hostility to genderfluidity that you suggest. I think you have overstretched the logical connections in the thread. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.121.162.83 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

I think Jayron was intending to reply to the IP that JackofOz replied to. I believe Jayron's suggestion was that essentially it's a more dog whistle-y version of "I identify as an attack helicopter". That is, there's an air of "what you say you are is only okay if I think it's a normal thing to say/be" to the tone, though the literal wording may not be saying that so it's not something that's immediately identified as such by everyone reading. - Purplewowies (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Jack said nothing particularly bigoted or objectionable. The same can not be said of all people involved in this thread. --Jayron32 10:02, 2 October 2020 (UTC)